Yes, I understand that. And that is coming from a white guy who was in the lower class, went to the Navy so that I could pay for college and am now in grad school. I get it, there are poor white people, but I would rather be a poor white person than a poor minority in this country. And according to this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html 25.5% of black people are living in abject poverty in this country compared to only 11% of white people. If that doesn't sound like something endemic to black people in this country, I don't know what to tell you.
Did you know that inertia applies to socioeconomic status? Being born poor means you are way more likely to grow up and be poor as an adult. Can you think of any reason why the majority of black people would have been poor several generations ago?
Maybe... just maybe that 25% to 11% difference is not so much about racial issues now and more to do with something that was started decades ago.
Fun thought... lets say we manage to balance that out with special black people help... now it's 14% chance of being poor for black and white people... do you think those 14% are suddenly going to feel so much better? "well at least people of my same RACE have an equal chance of not being poor as those white folks"?
Or do you think it would be better to work on removing the inertia that creates the problem in the first place? What if a poor kid had just as much chance of becoming rich later in life as a rich kid? Sounds a lot better to me than trying to artificially balance some meaningless percentages.
I was more interested in the effects of the opinion, than the legitimacy of affirmative action in general. Based on my reading, the court said that, while race-based policies CAN be permissible if they meet certain criteria, ALL race-based selection policies can be constitutionally banned by a state. The implications of this are pretty far reaching, from housing, to education and such, and I would venture to guess that other states will follow suit in the coming years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
You are assuming that the law is be all end all of morality, or that the law is inherently something that is worth following, or that a law that is unenforceable is a good law.
You heard it from timothy, people: the Civil Rights Act is a bad law, civil rights are not inherently worth following, and anything is moral as long as you won't get caught.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wow. I didn't say that at all. Unless you are trying to claim that Jim Crow laws were moral and should have been followed?
Not I. I'm only trying to claim that civil rights laws are moral and should be followed. But according to your logic, if the Civil Rights Act couldn't catch anybody discriminating against black people, there would be no problem.
You are assuming that the law is be all end all of morality, or that the law is inherently something that is worth following, or that a law that is unenforceable is a good law.
Actually, he assumes none of those.
And you're effectively saying it's o.k. to discriminate, so long as it's towards "non-minorities".
But you're adamantly against the discrimination of minorities.
You're effectively saying that a law that was designed to eliminate discrimination should be ignored when it comes to discriminating against people you feel don't need protection.
Do you see the problem? Selective discrimination is... still discrimination. There is no logic behind your thought process. It is purely emotional.
Much like how B_S just wrote in the post above mine.
You advocate the practice of selective discrimination towards whites, for whatever reason.
But I'm pretty sure you'll be REALLY angry when you see someone who advocates the practice of selective discrimination towards blacks, for whatever reason.
You are now assuming that discrimination against white people is on the same level as discrimination against minorities. I would rather be discriminated as a white person because it is very easy to go somewhere that won't discriminate against me. A black person, for the most part, cannot say that.
You are now assuming that discrimination against white people is on the same level as discrimination against minorities. I would rather be discriminated as a white person because it is very easy to go somewhere that won't discriminate against me. A black person, for the most part, cannot say that.
Timothy, no. Discrimination against anyone isn't okay. Just because someone is white does not mean they'll automatically succeed. You're misunderstanding the issue, and you're letting BS and Magickware back you into bad arguments. The truth is neutral, as is this law. Affirmative action has been a net positive because we want public institutions to better reflect the populace and welcoming to diversity, but that does not mean affirmative action is inherently good or that we don't care about the segment of the population that is left out. Affirmative Action is an attempt to speed up the process of moving the previously disadvantaged onto an equal footing with other groups.
The main problem with this ruling is that it makes it much harder to make our college populations representative of our population demographics. The case study here is Univ of M Ann Arbor, where the black student population is less the 5%, down almost half from the pre-ban enrollment, and pretty sad when overall enrollment is up 10% and the state's black population is closer to around 15%. It's a pretty stark example that we're not at the point yet where there is a self-sustaining trend in academic advancement among students affected by affirmative action. However, I would want to see how this enrollment transferred onto community colleges or other institutions before making an absolute declarations that this ruling was a 'bad' thing, but it was definitely a set back.
You are now assuming that discrimination against white people is on the same level as discrimination against minorities. I would rather be discriminated as a white person because it is very easy to go somewhere that won't discriminate against me. A black person, for the most part, cannot say that.
Incorrect.
I am not focusing on the level of discrimination. I am rather focusing on discrimination in of itself.
YOU are the one focusing on the level of discrimination, and saying that some level of discrimination is acceptable.
I disagree. I believe any level of discrimination is unacceptable. Because discrimination, period, is unacceptable.
Like I said, you're arguing almost purely on emotional terms right now.
The main problem with this ruling is that it makes it much harder to make our college populations representative of our population demographics. The case study here is Univ of M Ann Arbor, where the black student population is less the 5%, down almost half from the pre-ban enrollment, and pretty sad when overall enrollment is up 10% and the state's black population is closer to around 15%. It's a pretty stark example that we're not at the point yet where there is a self-sustaining trend in academic advancement among students affected by affirmative action. However, I would want to see how this enrollment transferred onto community colleges or other institutions before making an absolute declarations that this ruling was a 'bad' thing, but it was definitely a set back.
Why do we need the population of any particular institution to be representative of population demographics? Is attempting to achieve that really the best way to achieve whatever the end goal is?
Ann Arbor is an incredibly selective university. The simple fact is that most people who apply don't get in.
Just curious, was it wrong of South Africa to take land from the white landowners to give to blacks at the end of apqrtheid? I would argue that even though it was a discriminatory policy detrimental to the white people, it was better overall for the country.
Yeah, I am probably letting them back me into bad arguments Jay, but I don't like their naive thinking that white people are poor for the same reason minorities are and that the same solutions work for both groups.
The main problem with this ruling is that it makes it much harder to make our college populations representative of our population demographics. The case study here is Univ of M Ann Arbor, where the black student population is less the 5%, down almost half from the pre-ban enrollment, and pretty sad when overall enrollment is up 10% and the state's black population is closer to around 15%. It's a pretty stark example that we're not at the point yet where there is a self-sustaining trend in academic advancement among students affected by affirmative action. However, I would want to see how this enrollment transferred onto community colleges or other institutions before making an absolute declarations that this ruling was a 'bad' thing, but it was definitely a set back.
Why do we need the population of any particular institution to be representative of population demographics? Is attempting to achieve that really the best way to achieve whatever the end goal is?
Ann Arbor is an incredibly selective university. The simple fact is that most people who apply don't get in.
Presumably because, unless there are other factors in play, you would expect the university demographics to be roughly representative of the population demographics. If it's not roughly representative, you might want to take a look at why the populations are disproportionate. There may be explanations that don't involve discrimination at all, but I think it's worth asking the question.
'Most people who apply don't get in' - sure, okay. And why would proportionately less of the people who do get in be black?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Why do we need the population of any particular institution to be representative of population demographics?
Because if conditions were equitable in this country, barring cultural differences most of our major institutions would already be representative of the population.
Is attempting to achieve that really the best way to achieve whatever the end goal is?
The end goal is proportionality.
I don't really care about Ann Arbor in particular, but the issue with Affirmative Action isn't that they're letting in 'okay' black students instead of other 'good' students, it's that black students are far more likely to be born and attend substandard schools due directly to systemic discrimination over a long period of time, making a path to success much more difficult. It's essentially a cultural weighting.
My issue with it is that I wish we could get more specific than simply a 'race' itself, which is a poor indicator for the exact population within that race that we're looking at.
Just curious, was it wrong of South Africa to take land from the white landowners to give to blacks at the end of apqrtheid? I would argue that even though it was a discriminatory policy detrimental to the white people, it was better overall for the country.
This is an incredibly complex topic, and I wouldn't say that the outright giving of land was a good policy, especially when the next step was the building of shantytowns on that property. It was politically expedient but it certainly didn't do much to solve the social inequality or do much but cause further strife and divisions.
Yeah, I am probably letting them back me into bad arguments Jay, but I don't like their naive thinking that white people are poor for the same reason minorities are and that the same solutions work for both groups.
Then do more research and represent your point better, because arguing poorly is a sure way to reinforce theirs.
Just curious, was it wrong of South Africa to take land from the white landowners to give to blacks at the end of apqrtheid? I would argue that even though it was a discriminatory policy detrimental to the white people, it was better overall for the country.
Seeing as how I know nothing about South Africa, would you please explain to me how you think it was better overall for the country?
Oh, and no random-ass emotional crap either. Actual hard ******* data.
Yeah, I am probably letting them back me into bad arguments Jay, but I don't like their naive thinking that white people are poor for the same reason minorities are and that the same solutions work for both groups.
Who's erecting straw-men now?
You don't actually answer any of our arguments. And now you're calling us naive.
Until you prove that you're capable of actual independent thought, I'm done with you.
I don't really care about Ann Arbor in particular, but the issue with Affirmative Action isn't that they're letting in 'okay' black students instead of other 'good' students, it's that black students are far more likely to be born and attend substandard schools due directly to systemic discrimination over a long period of time, making a path to success much more difficult. It's essentially a cultural weighting.
My issue with it is that I wish we could get more specific than simply a 'race' itself, which is a poor indicator for the exact population within that race that we're looking at.
So the issue ultimately isn't that they're black, but that they're poor. Because they're poor, they live in poor conditions and do not have the means to change their position.
As I mentioned earlier to timothy, mimeslayer, there is a difference between saying- "racial minority=high chance of poor" and "poor= high chance of being a racial minority".
In other words, you need to be targeting poverty and assisting those living in substandard conditions.
Edit- Obviously this is an incredibly difficult topic and one that has been attempted to be addressed in policy, but generally ending in failure. That doesn't change the fact that the emphasis should be on socioeconomic levels and not race. It's the wrong emphasis imo, and one that actually damages the cause more than benefits it.
See, this is where I get lost with the whole "proportionality" argument- It seems to ignore socioeconomic conditions and assumes that merely forcing people upwards is enough. But if they were incapable of getting into the school based on the expectations the school has on their students, then what makes you think that they'll be able to keep up?
Yeah, I am probably letting them back me into bad arguments Jay, but I don't like their naive thinking that white people are poor for the same reason minorities are and that the same solutions work for both groups.
Because if conditions were equitable in this country, barring cultural differences most of our major institutions would already be representative of the population.
...
The end goal is proportionality.
Your statements seem to be at odds here. Is proportionality actually the end goal, or is proportionality simply an indicator of the real end goal that is equitable conditions? Placing proportionality as the true goal I find rather absurd; the composition of a population is neither good nor bad in its own right. (Is Wyoming a worse state because it's disproportionately white?) But if equitable conditions are the true goal, which is a position I endorse, then it's not obvious to me that proportionality will necessarily follow once that goal is reached, or that imposing proportionality directly will bring us closer to the goal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You are now assuming that discrimination against white people is on the same level as discrimination against minorities. I would rather be discriminated as a white person because it is very easy to go somewhere that won't discriminate against me. A black person, for the most part, cannot say that.
Honestly, how would I know if I'm being discriminated against when applying for a job or school? It's not like some overt thing.
So the issue ultimately isn't that they're black, but that they're poor. Because they're poor, they live in poor conditions and do not have the means to change their position.
See, this is where I get lost with the whole "proportionality" argument- It seems to ignore socioeconomic conditions and assumes that merely forcing people upwards is enough. But if they were incapable of getting into the school based on the expectations the school has on their students, then what makes you think that they'll be able to keep up?
Nope, the problem is that they're black and a historically (and currently) discriminated against group. There will always be poor people, we're just trying to make access more equitable. I'm well aware of the problem with using race as an indicator for poverty. That's not my issue with this, as that only looks at a small slice of the pie (the current period in time).
I'm looking to address discrimination, historical and current, and address the cultural shift that has occurred due to that discrimination (this is the most important part, and why we need these programs). If it was only because the people affected were poor, that would be one thing. But we also need to address the culture that tends to grow up around a disadvantaged and discriminated group, and that part takes more than just a boost into school. I'll be the first to admit affirmative action is rather limited in scope and efficacy, but it's just one of many different things that should be happening, it needs to be coupled with grass roots movements at the local level, public health interventions, etc.
The problem is, efforts tend to get torn down piece by piece, and you need to fight for all of them for it to be effective. The public health initiatives get defunded, the schools start artificially inflating test scores to get funding, legislators make it harder to vote or get into college, etc.
You are now assuming that discrimination against white people is on the same level as discrimination against minorities. I would rather be discriminated as a white person because it is very easy to go somewhere that won't discriminate against me. A black person, for the most part, cannot say that.
Incorrect.
I am not focusing on the level of discrimination. I am rather focusing on discrimination in of itself.
YOU are the one focusing on the level of discrimination, and saying that some level of discrimination is acceptable.
I disagree. I believe any level of discrimination is unacceptable. Because discrimination, period, is unacceptable.
Like I said, you're arguing almost purely on emotional terms right now.
I think this is dangerous. Do you mean to say discrimination based on race is unacceptable?
Well, I focused more on the fact that they're poor because, frankly speaking, money= power.
Asians were were the target of caricatures and discrimination in the 20th century. Then their countries and the Asians in the U.S. actually gained power. And the discrimination largely (you'd be idiotic to claim that Asians aren't discriminated against either) disappeared. At least in places where Asians hold power.
The culture you talk of is a very real thing, and probably a very big reason why black people are still living in poor conditions.
But then you run into problems of your own there. I mean, ffs, there was at one point an ideal that black people shouldn't even be trying to emulate the "white lifestyle", whatever the **** that means.
And in the 70-90s, post Civil Rights and during the big social movements attempting exactly what you talked about, many black people said that they didn't very much like government interventions. I know many schools predominantly filled with black people decried the fact that people attempted to "improve" their education standard and equipment. Apparently they didn't like the fact that others considered their stuff and education standard poor.
Heck, there recently had been an article on Yahoo! of a school in... Michigan? (I forget) that did something similar.
The point is, many such social engineering attempts don't actually take into account what the target populace thinks. And they do not always agree. It's incredibly convoluted and, imo, bizarre.
There still remains a very big divide between white and black people in the U.S. One that I believe cannot be addressed by government intervention, but rather just has to be left alone so that people can live with it. It's only been 60 years since the start of the Civil Rights movement, and many born in that era still live. Some of them still make policy for Christ's sake!
But it is an issue that I believe will be "fixed" once the older generation passes. It has always been like this when it comes to big social issues. I know "time" and "patience" is not preferable, but when there are no better alternatives (look at the above again, many black people themselves do not like attempts to "help" them), you can't do much else.
You are now assuming that discrimination against white people is on the same level as discrimination against minorities. I would rather be discriminated as a white person because it is very easy to go somewhere that won't discriminate against me. A black person, for the most part, cannot say that.
Timothy, no. Discrimination against anyone isn't okay. Just because someone is white does not mean they'll automatically succeed. You're misunderstanding the issue, and you're letting BS and Magickware back you into bad arguments. The truth is neutral, as is this law. Affirmative action has been a net positive because we want public institutions to better reflect the populace and welcoming to diversity, but that does not mean affirmative action is inherently good or that we don't care about the segment of the population that is left out. Affirmative Action is an attempt to speed up the process of moving the previously disadvantaged onto an equal footing with other groups.
The main problem with this ruling is that it makes it much harder to make our college populations representative of our population demographics. The case study here is Univ of M Ann Arbor, where the black student population is less the 5%, down almost half from the pre-ban enrollment, and pretty sad when overall enrollment is up 10% and the state's black population is closer to around 15%. It's a pretty stark example that we're not at the point yet where there is a self-sustaining trend in academic advancement among students affected by affirmative action. However, I would want to see how this enrollment transferred onto community colleges or other institutions before making an absolute declarations that this ruling was a 'bad' thing, but it was definitely a set back.
I think this is the best argument to why AA is practical although it still does not get past it violates the CRA or discriminates based on race.
Because if conditions were equitable in this country, barring cultural differences most of our major institutions would already be representative of the population.
The NBA player roster is not repersentive of the population, do we need AA there? What about MLB?
So the issue ultimately isn't that they're black, but that they're poor. Because they're poor, they live in poor conditions and do not have the means to change their position.
See, this is where I get lost with the whole "proportionality" argument- It seems to ignore socioeconomic conditions and assumes that merely forcing people upwards is enough. But if they were incapable of getting into the school based on the expectations the school has on their students, then what makes you think that they'll be able to keep up?
Nope, the problem is that they're black and a historically (and currently) discriminated against group. There will always be poor people, we're just trying to make access more equitable. I'm well aware of the problem with using race as an indicator for poverty. That's not my issue with this, as that only looks at a small slice of the pie (the current period in time).
I'm looking to address discrimination, historical and current, and address the cultural shift that has occurred due to that discrimination (this is the most important part, and why we need these programs). If it was only because the people affected were poor, that would be one thing. But we also need to address the culture that tends to grow up around a disadvantaged and discriminated group, and that part takes more than just a boost into school. I'll be the first to admit affirmative action is rather limited in scope and efficacy, but it's just one of many different things that should be happening, it needs to be coupled with grass roots movements at the local level, public health interventions, etc.
The problem is, efforts tend to get torn down piece by piece, and you need to fight for all of them for it to be effective. The public health initiatives get defunded, the schools start artificially inflating test scores to get funding, legislators make it harder to vote or get into college, etc.
I am confused by what you are trying to get at... You say the problem is not that a larger portion of black people are poor than white people... but something in their culture? Or is it something in white culture?
Are you trying to tell me that the way to get white people to treat black people as equals is to force them to treat them better than other white people? You realize that Affirmative action actually breed contempt and anger at people that arn't even responsible for the outcomes? The fact that affirmative action exists causes people to believe that some minorities only get and hold their jobs/acceptance into school, because of their race.
I personally know of an instance where a small private company hired a young black man to be in sales about 6 months to a year ago. He is absolutely horrible at his job to the point where he's had to have certain responsibilities taken away and put on his co-workers because he can't be trusted to do that part of his job... but he's still employed there. Everyone he works with now assumes, possibly correctly so, that the only reason he is still employed is because the owner of the business is afraid of being sued for wrongful termination.
You think these situations are really helping eliminate discrimination? You cannot force people to like or be nice to each other.
I think this is the best argument to why AA is practical although it still does not get past it violates the CRA or discriminates based on race.
In the court's opinion (and in precedent), affirmative action doesn't necessarily violate CRA - there is a test that previous cases have established to determine that. The michigan case simply stated that, regardless of AA's standing with the CRA, a state has the right to outright ban racial discrimination, even if it passes the test makes it acceptable under the CRA.
Constitutionality of AA was never at issue in this case - just the rights of a state to ban a practice that was previously consititonal and permissible under the CRA.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Did you know that inertia applies to socioeconomic status? Being born poor means you are way more likely to grow up and be poor as an adult. Can you think of any reason why the majority of black people would have been poor several generations ago?
Maybe... just maybe that 25% to 11% difference is not so much about racial issues now and more to do with something that was started decades ago.
Fun thought... lets say we manage to balance that out with special black people help... now it's 14% chance of being poor for black and white people... do you think those 14% are suddenly going to feel so much better? "well at least people of my same RACE have an equal chance of not being poor as those white folks"?
Or do you think it would be better to work on removing the inertia that creates the problem in the first place? What if a poor kid had just as much chance of becoming rich later in life as a rich kid? Sounds a lot better to me than trying to artificially balance some meaningless percentages.
I was more interested in the effects of the opinion, than the legitimacy of affirmative action in general. Based on my reading, the court said that, while race-based policies CAN be permissible if they meet certain criteria, ALL race-based selection policies can be constitutionally banned by a state. The implications of this are pretty far reaching, from housing, to education and such, and I would venture to guess that other states will follow suit in the coming years.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, he assumes none of those.
And you're effectively saying it's o.k. to discriminate, so long as it's towards "non-minorities".
But you're adamantly against the discrimination of minorities.
You're effectively saying that a law that was designed to eliminate discrimination should be ignored when it comes to discriminating against people you feel don't need protection.
Do you see the problem? Selective discrimination is... still discrimination. There is no logic behind your thought process. It is purely emotional.
Much like how B_S just wrote in the post above mine.
You advocate the practice of selective discrimination towards whites, for whatever reason.
But I'm pretty sure you'll be REALLY angry when you see someone who advocates the practice of selective discrimination towards blacks, for whatever reason.
Timothy, no. Discrimination against anyone isn't okay. Just because someone is white does not mean they'll automatically succeed. You're misunderstanding the issue, and you're letting BS and Magickware back you into bad arguments. The truth is neutral, as is this law. Affirmative action has been a net positive because we want public institutions to better reflect the populace and welcoming to diversity, but that does not mean affirmative action is inherently good or that we don't care about the segment of the population that is left out. Affirmative Action is an attempt to speed up the process of moving the previously disadvantaged onto an equal footing with other groups.
The main problem with this ruling is that it makes it much harder to make our college populations representative of our population demographics. The case study here is Univ of M Ann Arbor, where the black student population is less the 5%, down almost half from the pre-ban enrollment, and pretty sad when overall enrollment is up 10% and the state's black population is closer to around 15%. It's a pretty stark example that we're not at the point yet where there is a self-sustaining trend in academic advancement among students affected by affirmative action. However, I would want to see how this enrollment transferred onto community colleges or other institutions before making an absolute declarations that this ruling was a 'bad' thing, but it was definitely a set back.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Incorrect.
I am not focusing on the level of discrimination. I am rather focusing on discrimination in of itself.
YOU are the one focusing on the level of discrimination, and saying that some level of discrimination is acceptable.
I disagree. I believe any level of discrimination is unacceptable. Because discrimination, period, is unacceptable.
Like I said, you're arguing almost purely on emotional terms right now.
Why do we need the population of any particular institution to be representative of population demographics? Is attempting to achieve that really the best way to achieve whatever the end goal is?
Ann Arbor is an incredibly selective university. The simple fact is that most people who apply don't get in.
Yeah, I am probably letting them back me into bad arguments Jay, but I don't like their naive thinking that white people are poor for the same reason minorities are and that the same solutions work for both groups.
Presumably because, unless there are other factors in play, you would expect the university demographics to be roughly representative of the population demographics. If it's not roughly representative, you might want to take a look at why the populations are disproportionate. There may be explanations that don't involve discrimination at all, but I think it's worth asking the question.
'Most people who apply don't get in' - sure, okay. And why would proportionately less of the people who do get in be black?
Because if conditions were equitable in this country, barring cultural differences most of our major institutions would already be representative of the population.
The end goal is proportionality.
I don't really care about Ann Arbor in particular, but the issue with Affirmative Action isn't that they're letting in 'okay' black students instead of other 'good' students, it's that black students are far more likely to be born and attend substandard schools due directly to systemic discrimination over a long period of time, making a path to success much more difficult. It's essentially a cultural weighting.
My issue with it is that I wish we could get more specific than simply a 'race' itself, which is a poor indicator for the exact population within that race that we're looking at.
This is an incredibly complex topic, and I wouldn't say that the outright giving of land was a good policy, especially when the next step was the building of shantytowns on that property. It was politically expedient but it certainly didn't do much to solve the social inequality or do much but cause further strife and divisions.
Then do more research and represent your point better, because arguing poorly is a sure way to reinforce theirs.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Seeing as how I know nothing about South Africa, would you please explain to me how you think it was better overall for the country?
Oh, and no random-ass emotional crap either. Actual hard ******* data.
Who's erecting straw-men now?
You don't actually answer any of our arguments. And now you're calling us naive.
Until you prove that you're capable of actual independent thought, I'm done with you.
So the issue ultimately isn't that they're black, but that they're poor. Because they're poor, they live in poor conditions and do not have the means to change their position.
As I mentioned earlier to timothy, mimeslayer, there is a difference between saying- "racial minority=high chance of poor" and "poor= high chance of being a racial minority".
In other words, you need to be targeting poverty and assisting those living in substandard conditions.
Edit- Obviously this is an incredibly difficult topic and one that has been attempted to be addressed in policy, but generally ending in failure. That doesn't change the fact that the emphasis should be on socioeconomic levels and not race. It's the wrong emphasis imo, and one that actually damages the cause more than benefits it.
See, this is where I get lost with the whole "proportionality" argument- It seems to ignore socioeconomic conditions and assumes that merely forcing people upwards is enough. But if they were incapable of getting into the school based on the expectations the school has on their students, then what makes you think that they'll be able to keep up?
And vice versa.
But it's okay, Jay's here, so I'm done with you.
Your statements seem to be at odds here. Is proportionality actually the end goal, or is proportionality simply an indicator of the real end goal that is equitable conditions? Placing proportionality as the true goal I find rather absurd; the composition of a population is neither good nor bad in its own right. (Is Wyoming a worse state because it's disproportionately white?) But if equitable conditions are the true goal, which is a position I endorse, then it's not obvious to me that proportionality will necessarily follow once that goal is reached, or that imposing proportionality directly will bring us closer to the goal.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Honestly, how would I know if I'm being discriminated against when applying for a job or school? It's not like some overt thing.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Nope, the problem is that they're black and a historically (and currently) discriminated against group. There will always be poor people, we're just trying to make access more equitable. I'm well aware of the problem with using race as an indicator for poverty. That's not my issue with this, as that only looks at a small slice of the pie (the current period in time).
I'm looking to address discrimination, historical and current, and address the cultural shift that has occurred due to that discrimination (this is the most important part, and why we need these programs). If it was only because the people affected were poor, that would be one thing. But we also need to address the culture that tends to grow up around a disadvantaged and discriminated group, and that part takes more than just a boost into school. I'll be the first to admit affirmative action is rather limited in scope and efficacy, but it's just one of many different things that should be happening, it needs to be coupled with grass roots movements at the local level, public health interventions, etc.
The problem is, efforts tend to get torn down piece by piece, and you need to fight for all of them for it to be effective. The public health initiatives get defunded, the schools start artificially inflating test scores to get funding, legislators make it harder to vote or get into college, etc.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I think this is dangerous. Do you mean to say discrimination based on race is unacceptable?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Asians were were the target of caricatures and discrimination in the 20th century. Then their countries and the Asians in the U.S. actually gained power. And the discrimination largely (you'd be idiotic to claim that Asians aren't discriminated against either) disappeared. At least in places where Asians hold power.
The culture you talk of is a very real thing, and probably a very big reason why black people are still living in poor conditions.
But then you run into problems of your own there. I mean, ffs, there was at one point an ideal that black people shouldn't even be trying to emulate the "white lifestyle", whatever the **** that means.
And in the 70-90s, post Civil Rights and during the big social movements attempting exactly what you talked about, many black people said that they didn't very much like government interventions. I know many schools predominantly filled with black people decried the fact that people attempted to "improve" their education standard and equipment. Apparently they didn't like the fact that others considered their stuff and education standard poor.
Heck, there recently had been an article on Yahoo! of a school in... Michigan? (I forget) that did something similar.
The point is, many such social engineering attempts don't actually take into account what the target populace thinks. And they do not always agree. It's incredibly convoluted and, imo, bizarre.
There still remains a very big divide between white and black people in the U.S. One that I believe cannot be addressed by government intervention, but rather just has to be left alone so that people can live with it. It's only been 60 years since the start of the Civil Rights movement, and many born in that era still live. Some of them still make policy for Christ's sake!
But it is an issue that I believe will be "fixed" once the older generation passes. It has always been like this when it comes to big social issues. I know "time" and "patience" is not preferable, but when there are no better alternatives (look at the above again, many black people themselves do not like attempts to "help" them), you can't do much else.
Yes, you're right. I got a little too heavy-handed.
I think this is the best argument to why AA is practical although it still does not get past it violates the CRA or discriminates based on race.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The NBA player roster is not repersentive of the population, do we need AA there? What about MLB?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I am confused by what you are trying to get at... You say the problem is not that a larger portion of black people are poor than white people... but something in their culture? Or is it something in white culture?
Are you trying to tell me that the way to get white people to treat black people as equals is to force them to treat them better than other white people? You realize that Affirmative action actually breed contempt and anger at people that arn't even responsible for the outcomes? The fact that affirmative action exists causes people to believe that some minorities only get and hold their jobs/acceptance into school, because of their race.
I personally know of an instance where a small private company hired a young black man to be in sales about 6 months to a year ago. He is absolutely horrible at his job to the point where he's had to have certain responsibilities taken away and put on his co-workers because he can't be trusted to do that part of his job... but he's still employed there. Everyone he works with now assumes, possibly correctly so, that the only reason he is still employed is because the owner of the business is afraid of being sued for wrongful termination.
You think these situations are really helping eliminate discrimination? You cannot force people to like or be nice to each other.
In the court's opinion (and in precedent), affirmative action doesn't necessarily violate CRA - there is a test that previous cases have established to determine that. The michigan case simply stated that, regardless of AA's standing with the CRA, a state has the right to outright ban racial discrimination, even if it passes the test makes it acceptable under the CRA.
Constitutionality of AA was never at issue in this case - just the rights of a state to ban a practice that was previously consititonal and permissible under the CRA.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo